Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Clause 3 - Certificates of eligibility

Amendment proposed [8 December 2005]: No. 112 in clause 3, page 2, line 2, to leave out the word ‘must’ and insert the word ‘may’.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment No. 113, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out
‘, and have had since before 1st November 2005,’.
Amendment No. 232, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out ‘1st November 2005’ and insert ‘10th April 2004’.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert
‘and
(iii)that the applicant has not been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism since 10th April 1998.’.
Amendment No. 233, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘that’, insert
‘in the opinion of a senior police officer’.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘does not support’ and insert
‘has not at any time supported an organisation which is currently’.
Amendment No. 49, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(aa)that that Commission established under section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (the commission) has reported that any organisation with which the applicant was associated has completed the decommissioning of its weapons and all other terrorist property;’.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, after ‘that’, insert
‘, in the view of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,’.
Amendment No. 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
‘, or any other serious crime,’.
Amendment No. 235, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
‘or any other “specified offences” as set out in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003’.
Amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out
‘for a term of five years or more’.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Police Service of Northern Ireland believes that he will not pose a danger to the public.’.
Amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which currently causes, by threat against a person or persons, such person or persons to leave Northern Ireland or to be in fear of returning to Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which has been involved in any paramilitary, criminal or illegal activity since 1st December 2005.’.
Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant is not suspected of, or charged with or convicted of, an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).’.
Amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which the Independent Monitoring Commission cannot certify is maintaining a complete cessation of paramilitary and criminal activity.’.
Amendment No. 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has not engaged in any serious criminal activity.’.
Amendment No. 54, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has—
(i)ceased the practice of exiling; and
(ii)specifically and credibly stated that those who have been exiled from their homes are free to return without fear of intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress to themselves or their family.’.
Amendment No. 115, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, be a danger to the public;
(f)that the applicant has not been engaged, or is likely to be engaged, in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism;
(g)that the applicant is not concerned or likely to be concerned in any acts of criminality.’.
Amendment No. 169, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant in his application has disclosed all the offences committed by him to which this Act applies.’.
Amendment No. 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3A)In making an application under subsection (1), the applicant must state—
(a)all offences he wishes to have considered under the provisions of this Act;
(b)the names of any organisations with which he was associated in the commission of those offences; and
(c)that he does not support any organisation that is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 nor supports any acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
‘(d)the names of any organisations stated under subsection (3A)’.
Amendment No. 116, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(7A)Before submitting a statement under subsection (2) (a) a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland must consult and have regard to the views of—
(a)the Independent Monitoring Commission,
(b)the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, and
(c)the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.’.
New clause 20—Entitlement to certificate and licence: further provisions—
‘(1)If a person who is on licence under section 9 is convicted of an offence which (or the conduct constituting which) might have been specified in a certificate of eligibility, but which was not specified in such a certificate, the Secretary of State shall revoke the person’s licence.
(2)Where a person has been granted a certificate of eligibility in which certain conduct, or certain offences, are specified, and is on licence, no further certificate may be granted to that person in respect of any other offences.’.

David Hanson: Mr. Taylor, I hope that you and colleagues on the Committee have had a pleasant weekend away from the fray. It seems a long time since we commenced our debate on the group of amendments before us, which we were mid-way through on Thursday afternoon. Thanks to the good offices of Hansard, I have been able to refresh my memory of the conduct of the debate and I hope that I can answer some of the questions that were asked then.
The purpose of clause 3 is to define what makes applicants for a certificate of eligibility eligible for entrance to the scheme. The Government have specified in the Bill particularly severe and tight conditions for the scheme. For the benefit of the Committee, I shall set out those conditions. Subsection (3) states that
“The conditions are ... that the applicant does not support a specified organisation ... is not concerned or likely to be concerned in the commission ... or instigation of acts of terrorism ... that he has not been convicted of an offence committed on or after 10th April 1998 ... that no sentence of imprisonment for a term of five years or more has been imposed on him on conviction of ... an offence ... or ... a serious foreign offence committed on or after that date.”
The Government believe strongly that the conditions of eligibility are tight and define the scheme appropriately. Many of the amendments in the group would make changes to the conditions that applicants under the scheme must meet to be considered eligible. Some amendments refer to a condition that an organisation to which the applicant is affiliated is not indulging in paramilitary violence or criminality; others would make minor changes, such as adding a condition that an individual has not been involved in the commission of acts of terrorism since the Good Friday agreement, as opposed to currently being involved in such activity.
As I have said on several occasions, the reason why the Government have set the eligibility criteria as they have is that the scheme in the Bill provides for a logical extension of the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. For that  reason, the conditions in the clause closely mirror the conditions for eligibility in the early release scheme. The amendments would change those conditions.
Some amendments request that provisions mirroring those in respect of the granting of a licence or the cancellation of a certificate should apply at the certification stage. In respect of licences, such provisions refer to the applicant being a danger to the public or the organisation that the individual has supported becoming specified. The judgment whether a person is a danger to the public is relevant to the decisions surrounding the passing of a life sentence, but it can be made only after a proper assessment has been made following conviction. It is in the interests of the applicant to co-operate with that and I do not understand how it can be made in the person’s absence, or why it should be made before a person is even charged with an offence.
On Thursday, members of the Committee discussed the relevance of a person’s past affiliations. The amendments touch on whether they should be a matter for consideration by the certification commissioner. In my view, the test should be based on the current support for organisations because the scheme is predicated on activities carried out prior to 10 April 1998. Some of the offences that might be considered under the scheme may well have occurred 10, 15 or 20 years ago. The test of whether an individual is eligible for the scheme should be whether he or she currently supports an organisation. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) wish to intervene?

Tobias Ellwood: Not at this stage.

David Hanson: I could see that I was beginning to tempt the hon. Gentleman and, ever helpful, I wanted to give him the opportunity to intervene.
The test is current support. Under subsection (3), which sets out the eligibility criteria, the test is
“that he is not concerned or likely to be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”
and
“that the applicant does not support a specified organisation”.
It may be that an individual supported a specified organisation in the past, but in my view the test under the Bill should focus on current support. The commissioner’s task is, essentially, to make an objective judgment on whether a person is eligible. The commissioner cannot use discretion, as some hon. Members have suggested; it would be inappropriate for the commissioner to have that power. Discretion may be exercised by the Secretary of State in other circumstances because an applicant has broken all ties with a specified organisation, but the commissioner has to apply an objective test.
I know that some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), would like a requirement to be added compelling all applicants to provide a statement or confession in respect of offences that they may have committed. I understand the reasons behind that amendment, but I emphasise the judicial element of the scheme, and the fact that it is  built on due process. It would not be consistent with the process to force all or even some applicants to confess their involvement in certain offences. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall give the reasons for that.
There could be doubt about the credibility of such statements. I would be concerned about the effect on future prosecutions of confessions provided in those circumstances. I would not want a situation in which a handful of individuals came before the certification commissioner, confessed to a series of crimes and became the fall guys while the real perpetrators were not prosecuted.

Ben Wallace: On my reading of subsection (2), a person could not become an applicant if they did not fulfil the criteria defined by the police. A Walter Mitty character might turn up and say, “I killed all these people,” but unless a senior police officer in Northern Ireland said that there were grounds to regard that individual as a likely suspect, the application could not be accepted. The Minister’s fear is not warranted.

David Hanson: That is a potential issue, but is possible for an individual who is applying in connection with various crimes to say that he wishes to confess to the police that he committed an alleged crime, and that he can supply information about it, but that person might have all the details of how the alleged crime was committed because he is providing cover for another individual, whom he knows well and who will not now be charged for that crime. A person who knows that he will be charged with crimes anyway might decide to take the rap for another crime. He may know the individual who committed that crime and have all the details to link himself to it. It is perfectly feasible that an individual might come along with a credible tale about a particular incident and give details that would be known only to the perpetrator, because he knows the perpetrator. He could confess to a crime that he did not commit to cover for his acquaintance, who could give him legitimate information linking him to the crime. In that way, a person could adopt the identity of the perpetrator.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it would be possible in a range of circumstances for an individual to confess to a crime, to give factual information about it, to know the details and to give information known only to the perpetrator, but not to be the perpetrator. It is possible for another person to take the rap for the perpetrator. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it would still be difficult for the police to determine whether the individual who gives them factual information is, in fact, the individual who committed the crime. It is perfectly possible for someone to have very close associations with, and to protect the identity of, key individuals with very public personas who committed crimes in the past.

Ben Wallace: As the Bill stands, could that not happen anyway? It could happen, as the Minister has said, without any amendments being made to the Bill. An individual who had good knowledge and wanted to  cover for another individual could still do that. The Minister opposes some of the amendments because a Walter Mitty character could come along, but such a person who had information could do that under the Bill as it stands. Is that not correct?

David Hanson: Anything is theoretically possible, but it is the job of the police to determine such things. To describe someone as a Walter Mitty figure is to presume that that individual is fantasising about having participated in an event. I am pointing out that someone who has real knowledge of an event and knows the individual involved in it could adopt the persona of that individual to ensure that he evaded prosecution. That is the point that I am trying to make. The issue is debatable, but I hope that I have given the Government’s point of view on the matter.
A number of amendments are linked to the return of exiles as a condition of eligibility. The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Solihull both referred to that on Thursday. I am clear that the practice of exiling is incompatible with good Government policy and with the IRA statement of 28 July. I call on all organisations, irrespective of whether they are loyalist or republican, to cease that repellent practice now. The Government will do all we can to ensure that the full force of the law is in place so that exiled individuals can return, should they wish to do so.

Peter Robinson: Does the Minister not agree that it was inconsistent and incompatible for the Provisional IRA to hold on to its weapons while its colleagues were in government? No doubt the Minister and the Government would have indicated that that was not acceptable and that they would do everything they could to ensure that it did not happen, but it did happen. If the issue of exiles is not dealt with on the face of the Bill, what confidence can any of us have that it will be satisfactorily dealt with?

David Hanson: As a Government, we can send out strong messages and undertake strong activity to ensure that individuals who wish to return can do so. We will certainly work very hard to achieve that objective. The hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether we should, as the amendments suggest, link the question of exiles to the return of individuals under this legislation. That is what he proposes. Although I know that he opposes the Government’s policy, I say to him that entry to the scheme in the Bill should be on terms similar to those of entry to the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1988. I shall do all I can, as will the Secretary of State, to ensure that exiled individuals have the opportunity to return.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Surely the Government are not going to repeat the mistakes they made with the early release scheme. In that scheme, there were supposed to be linkages between decommissioning and the release of prisoners, but the linkages were not there. As a result, some of the main paramilitary organisations have had all their  prisoners released yet have still not decommissioned a single bullet. Will the clause not have precisely the same effect in terms of the return of exiles? The paramilitaries will pocket everything that the Government give them and give the absolute minimum in return.

David Hanson: The Government object to the fact that exiling exists; we do not believe that it is a positive development. We want to stop the practice of exiling and work with the police service and others to ensure that individuals have the protection of the law in returning to their homes. However, I do not believe that we can link the two in the Bill, as has been proposed by the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Solihull.
Other amendments relate directly to the conditions of eligibility. Under amendment No. 112, moved by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the certification commissioner would be given discretion over who should enter the scheme, irrespective of whether they met the conditions. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I do not believe that that is the right approach. The certification commissioner will be given a hard task under the legislation, which is essentially one of making an objective judgment on whether a person fulfils the criteria laid down by subsections (2) and (3) and other provisions. To burden the commissioner with a lack of objectivity in the task—the degree of discretion as proposed by the hon. Gentleman—will make every decision open to challenge on either personal or political grounds. I want to ensure that that does not happen.
On Thursday afternoon, the hon. Gentleman also asked why we chose the date of 1 November in the legislation. The date has no particular significance. It was chosen before the introduction of the legislation, because if the date had been chosen after the publication of the Bill, it would have enabled people to exploit the scheme by putting themselves outside the jurisdiction after the Bill had been published. The date, which is a random one, was intended to be put forward before the publication date of 9 November simply to ensure that a date was in place prior to the legislation.
These matters were discussed some days ago. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether the Government believe that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights.

Peter Robinson: No, I did not.

David Hanson: My memory might have escaped me. I am going from my notes from Thursday, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s word for that.

Peter Robinson: As the amendment indicates, I raised the specific question of those who have been involved in torture not being eligible under the certification scheme. That is slightly different from the issue that the Minister said I raised.

David Hanson: I was coming on to discuss torture. I was trying to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of both pieces of my advice on these matters. As I have gone to the trouble of examining the matter, let me put on record the fact that the Government believe that the Bill deals seriously with our international obligations. I have reviewed the amendments and the legislation and I am content that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 3 on torture. The scheme deals with specific cases rather than providing a justice system in Northern Ireland with parameters in which crimes of torture are prosecuted and punished. The convention requires the state to put in place offences, penalties and maximum sentences to deal with the cause of torture. The Bill does not undo that potential.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Whatever the Minister’s view on our international obligations, we also have obligations in respect of equality. Will the Minister advise the Committee whether the legislation has been the subject of an equality impact assessment? If not, why not?

David Hanson: I know that the hon. Gentleman was absent for legitimate reasons on Thursday, when several aspects of this matter were covered. I gave a commitment to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that we undertook that screening. I also undertook to find out whether I am able to publish that screening for members of the Committee. I have not yet received the advice on that but I confirm that when that advice is given to me and if I am able to publish the screening, I will do so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) for raising the matter again.

Peter Robinson: As the Minister will know, our obligations go well beyond simply having legislation in place and various penalties set out. Our obligations require an effective remedy. Where is the effective remedy if the person who is guilty of torture can walk free?

David Hanson: Again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am content that the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 3.

Peter Robinson: Because you say so.

David Hanson: I have made an assessment of the matter and I am content that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 3. The Bill is framed in a way that meets our international obligations. I am content with that.
This debate took place some time ago, but the final point made on the amendments related to requiring consultation between the police and groups such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Independent Monitoring Commission before a statement drawn up under clause 3(2)(a) could be submitted. The police are already best equipped to provide such a statement, irrespective of consultation  because, as has already been said, under clause 3(2) they are central to the application for the scheme. I regard the amendments as unnecessary.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has indicated that he is happy in his assessment that the Bill meets our human rights obligations. On what is his assessment based? Has he sought legal advice from the Attorney-General, or is this simply his take on the Bill? Will he share that with us?

David Hanson: I find myself in a strange position, because when I joined the Labour party 29 years ago, I never thought that when I said, “I”, I would be speaking as the Government. I am, collectively, the Government on this occasion, so if I say something, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) can be assured that that is the Government’s position. [Hon. Members: “That is not an answer.”] I have said that when I say on behalf of the Government that the Government believe that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, I have taken advice from colleagues in government and from the Government as a whole. When I say that, that is the Government’s position.

Tobias Ellwood: My intervention is not on that point, which was why I was gesturing to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury to give way. I can pose my question now, but the Minister might defer his answer until he has dealt with—

David Taylor: Order. The Minister indicated that is giving way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East.

David Hanson: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister and my hon. Friend for giving way.
The Minister did not quite answer the question on human rights. Has he had a chance to discuss the Bill with the new commissioner for human rights, who was hardly a Unionist appointment? I know that she has expressed some concern that some aspects of the Bill are not human rights-compliant.

David Hanson: Yes, I discussed the Bill with Monica McWilliams and the Human Rights Commission the day after it was published during a round of discussions. I told the Human Rights Commission that I am willing to consider representations. To my knowledge I have not yet seen any written representations from the Commission, although there may be some on the way.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify one simple point? Has the Attorney-General given legal advice that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights? That issue will come up again in relation to later amendments to clause 3. Will the Minister say, yes or no?

David Hanson: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—sorry, hon. Lady. I apologise to the hon. Lady, it is early on a Tuesday morning. All I can say to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for East Antrim is that the Government have considered the position and the advice that I am giving the Committee today is the Government’s advice based on my considerations with Government colleagues. That is the only answer that I can give.

Peter Robinson: I understand that the Human Rights Commission has given further consideration to this matter. Will the Minister give a commitment to the Committee by saying that if the Human Rights Commission expresses a view that the Bill is not compatible and recommends changes, he will make those changes?

David Hanson: No, I cannot. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Human Rights Commission’s job is to advise Government and although I have to take cognisance of that advice, I do not have to accept the views it expresses. As yet, I have not seen what the Human Rights Commission has to say, and I need to examine anything that it brings forward. I had a frank, open and fruitful discussion with the commission—it was a private meeting, so I will not go into details. I will reflect on what the commission says, as I will reflect on any points raised during the passage of the Bill, on Report and in another place. To my knowledge, I have not received any formal representations from the Human Rights Commission.
Several hon. Membersrose—

David Taylor: Order. I do not intend to allow any more interventions on this point.

David Hanson: We had a full afternoon on Thursday and today’s debate has provided us with an opportunity to refresh our memories of some of the relevant points. I commend the clause as it stands and ask my hon. Friends to reject the amendments if they are not withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for his responses. I will be brief, because we have discussed this matter at length.
Amendment No. 112 would delete “must” and insert “may”, and I accept the Minister’s explanation in that respect, as I can his answer on amendment No. 113, which questions why the date of 1 November is stated in the legislation. The Minister also gave a reasonable response to amendment No. 116.
On amendment No. 115, however, the Minister did not satisfactorily explain why we cannot add the condition that senior police officers do not believe that applicants will be a danger in society. That is a reasonable request. It is also reasonable to ask for the clause to be consistent with other recent terrorist legislation. We did not press for the measure on glorification of terrorism to be included in the Terrorism Bill; the Government did. That amendment will come up for a decision at the end of our debates on clause 3, and I will press it to a Division because I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in clause 3, page 2, leave out line 4.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 167, in clause 3, page 2, line 4, leave out ‘applicant’ and insert ‘application’.
No. 168, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2)An application may be made within a period of 12 months following the coming into force of this Act for a certificate of eligibility for offences to which this Act applies in respect of which the applicant has not been charged and acquited or has not been convicted and served the sentence imposed in respect thereof.’.
No. 250, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
No. 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 182, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, after ‘it’, insert
‘and the applicant would have been convicted or acquitted but for the fact that he is believed by the commissioner to be outside the United Kingdom.’.
No. 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 183, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert
‘because he is believed by the commissioner to be outside the United Kingdom, or’.
No. 184, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 22 and 23.
No. 185, in clause 3, page 2, leave out line 24 and insert—
‘()has been sentenced but is believed by the commissioner to be unlawfully outside the United Kingdom during the currency of such a sentence.’.
No. 251, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
No. 170, in clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.
No. 252, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 11 to 13.

Lady Hermon: It is delightful to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Taylor.
I am extremely disquieted by the wording of clause 3 and by the Minister’s suggestion, in response to a number of interventions, that he has not received—and perhaps has not even sought—clarification and advice from the Attorney-General on the drafting of the Bill. I find that very concerning. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that towards the end of the debate.
I am particularly disquieted by the Minister’s response because clause 3 is inherently discriminatory. My amendments are intended to extract from him a justification—or rather an explanation, because it would be no justification—for giving preferential treatment to on-the-run terrorists outwith the jurisdiction.
Subsection (2) states the various categories of people who can benefit from applying for a certificate of eligibility and being granted an amnesty. According to subsection(2)(a), those who are outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom may make an application without ever having to return to the jurisdiction. We should compare that with the situation for others, who  will primarily be members of the security forces. The Minister went to great pains at the Committee’s first sitting to explain why members of the security forces were being brought within the ambit of the Bill. However, under subsection (2), on-the-run terrorists will receive preferential treatment compared with that of members of the security forces, who will have to be charged and who will spend some time—goodness knows how long—in prison. How can the Minister justify treating mass murderers outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, who will never have to set foot in jail for one minute of one hour, better than members of the security forces who are believed to have committed serious offences, who will have to be brought to prison?
I see that the Minister is looking bewildered. If he looks at clause 3(2)(b) and (c), he will see that the wording clearly applies if
“the applicant has been charged with an offence ... (but not convicted or acquitted ... )”—
and therefore, the person is in jail—or, in paragraph (c),
“the applicant has been convicted of ... an offence and ... has not been sentenced”,
is serving in custody, or has actually absconded but is nevertheless within Northern Ireland. How can the Minister justify preferential treatment for mass murderers outside the jurisdiction—the so-called OTRs—compared with a group who will primarily be within the security forces? That is doubtless a small group; nevertheless the provision is discriminatory.
The Minister should know well that the Human Rights Act 1998—by which his Government brought home the European convention on human rights and made it part of our domestic legislation—makes the situation absolutely clear. To quote directly from article 14:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention”—
which covers everyone, including those charged with serious criminal offences—
“shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”—
I repeat, on any ground—
“ ... or other status”.
I repeat my question. How, in heaven’s name, can the Minister, first, persuade the Committee that the provision is compatible with the European convention on human rights—his response to the hon. Member for Belfast, East assured us that it was compatible—and secondly, justify giving OTRs preferential treatment outside the jurisdiction, compared with those who will fall within the ambit under clause 3?

Alasdair McDonnell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle stated last Thursday, we intend to come at the legislation from all angles, attempting to minimise the considerable damage that we think that it will do. We also intend to table amendments to test the Government’s intentions. Amendments Nos. 182 to 185 do just that,  because they would limit the qualifications strictly to what could be described as classic on-the-runs, as the Prime Minister told us they would be.
It is not just the origins of the Bill that have been misrepresented, but its purpose. Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy flew over here the morning that the Bill was published to welcome it, stating that it
“should resolve the cases of a very small number of people who wish to return home”.
The Prime Minister, in sync and on message with Sinn Fein, said at the Liaison Committee on 22 November, before Second Reading:
“It was ... always going to be an anomaly that we have to resolve in respect of those people who had not been convicted”,
but had been
“sought pre-1998”.
To me, that is highly misleading and, to be honest, downright untrue. The fact is that the legislation applies to anybody, charged at any time, with any of the 2,100 unsolved killings of the troubles, going back 30 years.
The Bill applies to any offence committed before 10 April 1998. As it says in clause 1(1), it applies to offences
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.
Let us suppose that we took the Prime Minister’s word on this—that this is just about people who were sought pre-1998, but were not charged because they were not in the jurisdiction. If that were the case, our amendments Nos. 182 to 185 would be welcomed by the Government. We therefore commend them for inclusion, and ask the Government to discuss them with Sinn Fein.
After all, if this is just about a small number of people, as Conor Murphy claimed, then let the Government support the amendments to show that—but of course, it is not about a small number of people. The Government’s side deal at Hillsborough was about exempting every person who could be charged with a criminal offence of any kind—terrorists as well as some of those in the state security service who were renegade and acted outside their remit and their rules and regulations. If the Government or Sinn Fein oppose these amendments, that is what they are confirming. Although the amendments might not be fully satisfactory to some, they would at least limit the damage done by the Bill. They also give the Government the option of putting in the Bill what the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that the legislation was designed to do.

Peter Robinson: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and I shall also discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 5, in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Following on from what she said, the Minister will have to reconsider his earlier remarks about compliance with the European convention on human rights and other international obligations.
My understanding is that the Minister is not a lawyer—he has much to be grateful for. Therefore, I assume that he took advice from someone, but as he has indicated, it was not from the Attorney-General. He has therefore arrived at a conclusion, on which he will stake his reputation, made, I assume, on the basis of a legal opinion from someone in the Department. That legal opinion seems to be at variance with the opinion of the Government-appointed Human Rights Commission.
That places the Minister in a dilemma. I would have thought that in those circumstances—he has been aware of the HRC’s misgivings about his legislation—he would immediately have been in touch with the Attorney-General to resolve the difference of opinion between his lawyer and the HRC. I hope that the Minister will share with us the legal opinion that he has received, because we would like to know whose legal opinion it is, and what it says. The Committee is entitled to that, because this issue will go to the courts if the Minister does not face up to the situation now; let us be clear about that. I hope that he will reconsider between now and Report, or between now and when the legislation goes to another place, and that he will have upgraded his legal opinion on the basis of what he will, by then, have been told by the HRC.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) about the necessity to test the Government on the extent to which the legislation can be used. The very name that has been given to the legislation, the “on-the-runs Bill”, indicates something: in the mind of the Government at least—no doubt it was they who, through their spin doctors, gave it that name—it was intended to deal with those who had escaped the jurisdiction and had sought refuge in other places.
It is therefore clear that the extent of the Bill should not be for literally anybody who committed a terrorist-related offence—in fact, the relevant definition even goes beyond terrorist-related offences—since April 1990, or before April 1998. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment makes that point. I am sure that Sinn Fein would even cheer the Minister, because if that amendment were to be accepted it would confine the provision to a small group of people.
Our amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seek to make a further distinction—between those who escaped the jurisdiction and those who were convicted and then escaped it. Some people were convicted in the courts, and some of them were imprisoned and then escaped the jurisdiction. I can think of one who escaped: Liam Averill, who decided to go in drag to get out of the Maze prison. There is a distinction between someone who should have fallen under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and those who seek to benefit from the Bill. All in all, although the Bill is odious, if it can be odious to fewer people, at least that will offer some relief.

Lorely Burt: For clarification, will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is anyone who absconded while on bail who would not be covered by the legislation? In other words, are we talking about not only those who were convicted, went to prison and  then escaped, but those who were on bail pending trial? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to tighten up the Bill, but the amendments would still leave a body of individuals who will not be covered by the legislation. I imagine that he will say to me, “Well, those people should come before a court”—

David Taylor: Order. That is a rather long intervention. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to make a speech later.

Peter Robinson: I think that I got the thrust of what the hon. Lady was saying. If the provision was confined simply to those who had escaped jurisdiction, that would significantly reduce the number of people who would benefit to about 18 to 30 people, or something in that range. Of those, relatively few—probably a handful in all—would be convicted. People are dealt with under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 only on the basis of having been sentenced. That is probably the definition of who would fall under the separate legislation, and so should be serving, at the very least, two years under the 1998 Act—presuming that they did not serve a third of their sentence before they absconded.
All in all, the amendments would reduce the parameters of the Bill. I think that that is a proper test to apply to it, and I will support the amendments, as will my hon. Friends.

David Hanson: First I shall answer the hon. Member for Belfast, East on the point about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the legal advice issue. To clarify the matter for the Committee, it is not the Government’s intention, or normal Government practice, to publish legal advice—nor is doing so in the ministerial code. I have told the hon. Gentleman, in the open and honest way in which I try to help on such matters, that I have taken a view on the issues, and I speak for the Government when I take that view. That is as far as I can go on that point.
With regard to the question on the Human Rights Commission generally, as I said to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members under previous clauses, I have met Monica McWilliams and the Human Rights Commission for an initial discussion about the Bill. To my knowledge, I have not yet received a written submission of their comments on it—although it may have arrived yesterday or today—but I fully expect one. When it arrives I will consider it, as I will all representations. If there is merit in what they say, I will reflect on their comments and examine the legislation as it progresses through this House and the other place.
The amendments that we are discussing basically aim to limit the scope of the scheme. In particular, their aim is that the scheme should apply only to those outside the jurisdiction, and that those charged with the relevant offences in future should not be eligible. That is a common theme in the amendments before us today.
The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the potential for an anomaly in respect of individuals whom she mentioned, in this case those who were in the security forces. They could find themselves in jail,  while on-the-runs are returning without facing a jail sentence. The hon. Lady believes that those qualifying under subsection (2)(b) may face jail. There is no requirement to jail those who qualify under that provision. When they receive the certificate, having applied for it, they will be exempt from remand in custody. As with those dealt with under the Bill generally, they will be released on licence on conviction. Once the individual has received the certificate and it has been acknowledged, that person will be exempt from remand. When the conviction goes through the special tribunal, which we shall consider later, that individual will, accordingly, not face a jail sentence.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister make clear the position of a member of the security forces who was believed to fall within the legislation and applied for a certificate? There would be a period of time during which their application had to be examined. Would they not go to jail? Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that no member of the security forces would go to jail between their application for a certificate and its receipt?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady has mentioned that point again. I say to her that under the qualifying legislation such a person would not be on remand, and, if convicted, they would be released on licence. Again, my reflection is that before the receipt of the certificate, bail would be provided for the individual so that they did not serve time in jail while awaiting certification or conviction, so my answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister point to the clause that states in black and white what he has just said to the Committee?

David Hanson: I have given the Committee my assessment of the operation of the legislation and how it will be interpreted. I have given my interpretation of it. The hon. Lady can accept what I have said at face value and reflect on it when Hansard is produced. I have said what the impact of the legislation will be and I hope that she accepts my assurances.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister say how many people will be encouraged to come back to Northern Ireland to be granted certificates if the clause is passed unamended?

David Hanson: I cannot do that at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware from discussions on Second Reading and elsewhere. A number of individuals could qualify, but the eligibility criteria in subsection (2) relate to the police service making an assessment on individuals who are suspected of offences and who are currently outside the jurisdiction. Until that assessment is made, we cannot give a definitive figure in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply, but there is a concern that if the clause is passed unamended, we shall invite back to Northern Ireland what could be a considerable number of people who have been on the run for an awfully long time. I am concerned that there has been no consideration about the impact that such people will have on the communities to which they return.
If the legislation folds because the IRA breaks its ceasefire, we will have invited a lot of criminals who had been on the run back into Northern Ireland and given them licences. Such people might then be active participants in a rejuvenated IRA.

David Hanson: There were an awful lot of “ifs” in that assertion. The process that we are moving forward—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lagan Valley concurs with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, but there are a lot of “ifs” in what he said. I am simply putting the legislation before the Committee because we in the Government have made an assessment, with which I know some Members disagree, that following the statement in July we are moving to a position in which it is possible to bring this legislation forward. The Government did not do that before the statement in July, because we wanted to see it, see it monitored and see it progress. We do not believe that the “ifs” that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East has mentioned are likely to occur. That is a political judgment that we have made as part of the acts of completion.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to avoid the “ifs” is to consider what has happened with the early release scheme? Will he illuminate the Committee on the effect of that scheme on the communities, and on the response of the police to it?

David Hanson: The conviction rate for individuals who have been on early release is very low. I do not have the figures in my head, but the number of individuals reconvicted for terrorist offences who have been on early release is very small compared with the overall number of people who have been released. I could give my hon. Friend a rough guess on that now, but I would prefer to give him the accurate figures in due course.
Members across the board have discussed limiting the scheme and reducing its scope. To choose to take the scheme forward in its current form was not an easy decision for the Government. We made that decision because there was an anomaly in the situation of certain individuals under the 2003 and 2001 proposals. Few would doubt that that anomaly has cast a shadow over the political process over many years, and we do not want this legislation to create further anomalies in later years. That is why we have made the difficult decision to grasp the nettle now. We have chosen to deal with the status of future suspects in the legislation now, rather than potentially have to revisit it later to clear up anomalies that we might well create by not including those individuals.

Lady Hermon: The Minister has acknowledged that he will not accept any amendments to clause 3. There will, therefore, be an inherent anomaly in that clause. I would like the Minister to explain why OTRs will be given preferential—discriminatory—treatment compared with members of the security forces. That is a straightforward question, to which I would like a straightforward answer.

David Hanson: I do not believe that they will be given preferential treatment. I have already explained that in my view the eligibility criteria for, and the treatment of, both security force members and members of terrorist organisations will be the same through the certification procedure and the special tribunal. As I do not believe that there is preferential treatment, I cannot address that point any further.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, East spoke to amendment No. 184. It would have the effect that those who have been in prison for a qualifying offence but who have not served the two years required by the early release scheme could not apply for the scheme. I can see why the amendment has been tabled, but it would make more sense to allow such individuals to apply for the scheme, because I can see little benefit in requiring the certification commissioner to be convinced that those who may have absconded, or who are unlawfully at large, must also have been outside the jurisdiction to be eligible.
I regret that I am unable to agree to the amendment, and I hope that it will be withdrawn. If it is not, I invite Labour Committee members to reject it.

Lady Hermon: It is not my intention to withdraw the amendment. I am shocked and deeply concerned by the Minister’s reply. The assurances that he has given, and his clarification of what he thinks the position is for the security forces, are all well and good and will go on the record in Hansard. However, when a member of the security forces receives a knock on the door and is told that it has been brought to the attention of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that they might have committed a serious offence and will therefore be charged with it, it will be of little comfort to them to know that it is not in the legislation—that is written in black and green rather than black and white, the hon. Member for Belfast, East assures me—that a member of the security forces will not rest in prison at Her Majesty’s pleasure between the time of application for a certificate and its being processed by the certification commissioner.
The clause is inherently discriminatory. It beggars belief that the Minister, while answering for the Government, has been unable to confirm to the Committee that he has sought and obtained the advice and opinion of the Attorney-General. I do not remember asking him to disclose that advice. I simply asked him whether he had sought it.

David Hanson: For the avoidance of doubt, I have not confirmed whether I did or did not seek advice. I am making no comment about that. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] As I mentioned during the debate, it is not the Government’s policy to comment on such aspects.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for his response, although I did not understand it. It is only in recent days that the Northern Ireland Office has explained that the Attorney-General was consulted on Stormontgate and the collapse of that trial. It is astounding that the hon. Gentleman is now unable to confirm matters one way or the other. The Attorney-General has a particular responsibility in Northern Ireland. We are without a devolved Assembly, and even with the Assembly, criminal justice was not devolved to it, so the Attorney-General has a special role in considering criminal legislation and new offences.
It is wholly appropriate that Lord Goldsmith should have been consulted and it beggars belief that the Minister is unable to confirm one way or the other whether he has been. I refuse to withdraw my amendment and will be pressing it and others to a vote. I am most disquieted and unhappy that OTRs will have beneficial and preferential treatment over members of the security forces without any changes being accepted by the Minister.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept my amendments. They were tabled to curtail the legislation and keep it within the confines that were announced originally and that we were told that it would be restricted to. It is important that the record should show that the Bill is much wider and deeper than we first thought. To a large extent, it is endless in what it can cover and what it will not cover. I regret that the amendments are not acceptable. I tabled them in good faith and I was hopeful that they would be accepted in the spirit in which they were drafted. I must press my lead amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Alasdair McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in clause 3, page 2, line 6, at end insert
‘and
(c)the application is received by the commissioner within six months of the entry into force of this section’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 57, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A)The Commissioner may not consider an application if it is received more than 12 months after the provisions of this Act come into force.’.
Amendment No. 117, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A)An application for a certificate of eligibility must be made by the applicant in the manner required by the certification commissioner within six months of this Act coming into force.’.
New clause 7—Time limits for acceptance of applications for certificates of eligibility—
‘(1)No applications for certificates of eligibility will be accepted after six months following the coming into force of this Act from those believed to have committed offences.
(2)No applications for certificates of eligibility will be accepted from victims or victims’ families after twelve months following the coming into force of this Act.’.

Alasdair McDonnell: The Bill does not just deny families justice; it robs them of any last chance of the truth. Because there is no time limit or qualifying term for this legislation, those responsible for killing some 2,100 people in circumstances that we describe as those of unsolved murder have no incentive to come forward. They can sit back and wait to see whether the police ever come knocking on their door, secure in the knowledge that if they are ever caught or under suspicion they need not worry, because they can apply under the terms of Bill at any time. They can wait and see whether the historic inquiries team ever comes after them. If not, all is well; if so, all is still well, because they can apply for a skip-jail certificate—the certificate of eligibility—and will not even have to worry about spending the two years in prison provided for under the Good Friday agreement.
If the Bill is to proceed—again, I hope it does not—at the very least we could insert a time limit after which people would not be able to avoid any time in jail. That way, at least, there would be some incentive and pressure on those responsible to come forward and give victims the truth.
It has been suggested by some that a time limit of four years would suffice, but I want to make it clear that, from where I am coming from, it would not, because that would be same as the time limit on the historic inquiries team. That would be unacceptable and would give no incentive to people who were guilty of crimes to come forward, since they must know that after the historic inquiries team winds up, there will be little chance of them ever being caught or prosecuted.

Laurence Robertson: The Conservatives share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South and we support amendment No. 117, which  would effectively be a sunset clause requiring applicants to make their application within six months of the Bill being enacted and coming into force.
The Government have said on many occasions that they want closure on this issue, which is their stated reason for introducing the Bill. I suppose that in introducing a date we would be going along with that and saying, “Let’s have closure.” We are talking about a six-month period for an application to be made, not the end of the tribunal proceedings. It is reasonable to set a time limit, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, which I do not intend to repeat.
We support the amendment and have tabled our own. There is also an amendment in the group stating that there should be a 12-month time scale. We would prefer six months, but I understand where the hon. Member for Solihull is coming from. We would not be diametrically opposed to a 12-month limit, but we want the matter brought to a conclusion, rather than running on, because we are most concerned about the victims, who have had terrible crimes committed against them or their loved ones. We do not want that agony to drag on.
We support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, and we commend our amendment No. 117 to the Committee.

Lorely Burt: All the amendments in the group seek a time limit of some sort on applicants being able to apply to the commissioner. Amendment No. 57 is the first of a number that aim to place a time limit on the life of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has just said, whether it is six or 12 months is less important than the principle that a time limit should exist.
We feel strongly that this important amendment should be accepted because of the victims, so they would know that although a time would come when these individuals could make their application, there would be an end date after which no more applications would be made. I do not want to prolong this debate, as the principle is clear.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. The Committee will also be aware that we have tabled new clause 7, the first part of which proposes:
“No applications for certificates of eligibility will be accepted after six months following the coming into force of this Act”
from those believed to have committed offences.
The provision of what amounts to an amnesty should not be open-ended. While we are opposed in principle to the Bill, if it has to happen at all it should be time limited. We cannot have this issue going on and on, like a running sore, and it is already causing significant problems within the political process. Indeed, the Superintendents Association has said that it will undermine public confidence in the judicial process in Northern Ireland. The longer it is allowed to run, the longer that loss of confidence will prevail.
We believe, therefore, that six months is an appropriate time scale. If offenders or perpetrators do not know now that they have committed an offence, they are hardly more likely to know or to acknowledge it in 12 months, or two or six years. Six months is more than adequate for a perpetrator to apply for a certificate. We will support the proposals that would give effect to such provision, including our own new clause 7.

Meg Hillier: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I feel strongly on this point that the open-ended nature of the Bill sits ill with its logic, which is to try to progress things in Northern Ireland—putting an end to this phase and helping us to move towards devolution. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Solihull that this is about the point of principle.
I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not able to say, here and now, whichever may be the right time limit—six, 12 or 18 months—but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this matter seriously, and I will be listening carefully to his comments. As a new Member, I am perhaps unsure whether it is possible for him to accept an amendment here and now, given the plethora of amendments to choose from, but I hope that his response clearly indicates that he is prepared to put in an end time. Otherwise, the Bill will sit ill with the logic of saying that we are reaching the end of a difficult stage in Northern Ireland’s history and attempting to use it as a platform for moving on the peace process and devolution. I shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says. I hope he can give us some assurances.

Ben Wallace: I support the amendment. To echo the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), there has to be a time limit. Now, Mr Taylor, we can debate whether that should be six months or three or four years, but the message that must emerge is that these people have to give something as well. We cannot give, effectively, a get-out-of-jail-free card without them contributing to that process. A time limit would give good food for thought to those individuals in that they would have only so much time to come forward.
If such things as time limits and full disclosure are good enough for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, why are the people of Northern Ireland not being given the same courtesy by the Government? I find that perverse. This is an important issue, and if we are not successful with our amendments here, I hope that it will be a unifying point in the other place.
I am not trying to be controversial. The Government are telling us that this is a process, and processes, by definition, have a beginning and an end. For that reason, we should put limits or time scales in most legislation, and certainly in this Bill. That would be a good message to send to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that many Committee members will support the proposal.

Huw Irranca-Davies: When I intervened on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading, I raised this issue, among others. I shall support neither 12 months nor six, but although I do not know what the correct time is, there should be a time limit, for the reasons already given. That way, there would be an incentive for those who might take advantage of the Bill to come forward within a certain time and do so. I am not clear at this moment whether that time should be six, 12 or 24 months, but I urge the Minister to consider the issue as the Bill progresses through the House and the other place. Many people on the Committee, and in the House at large, feel that there is an element of trying to achieve some kind of close—to use one of these horrible terms—whether in the political process or elsewhere. That close implies a date at which the Bill would close, too.
The Minister will be aware that there is strong feeling across the parties on this subject. I agree with earlier comments on this point. We all agree that this is extremely unpalatable legislation, but we on the Labour Benches agree with the Minister that it is entirely necessary. Having said that, we also feel that there has to be a point at which the legislation, and the avenue for people to come forward and take advantage of it, closes.
I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I will not vote for either six months or 12, because I am not sure about the matter at the moment, but I strongly urge him to consider the views being expressed, and to consider the matter as the Bill progresses through Committee and on to the other place.

Lady Hermon: I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, who has made a sensible contribution, but I am sorry that he will not vote for either amendment. I shall certainly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I regret that a similar amendment that I tabled was not selected for debate, but I make no criticism at all, because it covered the same point.
This is obnoxious legislation and the Minister must accept that amendments will have to be made if it is ever to see the light of day. As a minimum, he has to accept these changes: there must be a requirement on the defendant, however prominent he or she is, to appear before the tribunal and show his or her face, and the Bill must be time limited. It is an untenable position for the Government to set up such complex and expensive apparatus, consisting of a certification commissioner, a special tribunal with three members, appeals commissioners and a special appeal tribunal. It is wholly unacceptable that the public should be expected to pay, through taxation, to support a parallel process that I am convinced the judiciary in Northern Ireland finds entirely repulsive. I am speaking not of the individuals who will fill those posts, but of the parallel process.
The provisions must be time limited, and I urge the Minister, who speaks for the Government, to say clearly to the Committee that they, and he in particular, will accept an amendment to make the provisions time limited.

Peter Robinson: Not having a time limit was either a monumental error on the part of the Government or a deliberate means of allowing the Government to make a gesture at some later stage in proceedings. That is the sort of cynicism that comes after 26 years in this House.
However, I have noticed how relaxed the Whip and the Minister are while behind them there is the appearance of some dissent. One can only imagine that the Minister is about to make a grand gesture. I hope that he is going to indicate that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter. It would be folly not to do so. The practical operation of this scheme requires it to be time-limited. It would not work without time limitation. If there is no time limit, nobody will apply—only a fool would apply. The people involved would simply hold on to the piece of legislation and if ever the police apprehend them and seek to charge them, they will pull it out of their back pocket at that stage. They will not do so in any other circumstances—why would they? If the legislation is to work, it requires a time limit, which raises the question why there was no time limit in the first place. That leads me to the conclusions that I have reached.
The Secretary of State announced that one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide “closure”—we go back to that unfortunate word. There will be no closure unless there is a time limit. For all those reasons, it is clear that the Government will eventually have a time limit, so let the Minister announce it now.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the contributions from both sides of the Committee, including those made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), because we are dealing with an important matter. I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that his 26 years of experience in this House will show that occasionally Ministers say that they cannot accept amendments. I am afraid that that is this case now, but I hope to be able to offer some reassurance in respect of the arguments advanced on the need for a time limit.
I understand the importance that hon. Members attach to the need for a time limit. The Government share the view that the scheme should not continue indefinitely. We are bringing before the House and this Committee what is, by nature, a temporary measure. I also believe that there might be a need for an incentive to encourage applicants. I understand what my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Ogmore have said, but I must say that the time limits proposed in the amendments are too tight to enable the scheme to operate effectively.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. Perhaps I am pre-empting him, but does he have any idea what would be a suitable time limit, or is it too early to say?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend does indeed pre-empt what I was about to say. With your permission, Mr. Taylor, I refer hon. Members to later clauses. I know that we will refer to them later, but they are relevant to  the application of the amendments. In subsection (1) of clause 23, which is headed “Power to repeal provisions of this Act, etc”, the Government clearly state their belief that the Secretary of State should have the power to close down the legislation in due course, if that is approved by both Houses. Subsection (1) states:
“The Secretary of State may by order repeal any provision of this Act if, at any time no earlier than two years after its commencement, he is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by the provision remaining in force.”
That does not set a time limit on the application of the scheme, but it says that we anticipate that the scheme will run for at least two years following the implementation of the legislation. The Secretary of State will then have the power to close the scheme by order at a date of his or her choosing. We could well be talking about 2009. I do not want to pre-empt the decisions of whoever is the Secretary of State at that time, but in 2009 the Secretary of State could decide whether to close down the scheme, based on his or her judgment on how it is operating.

Peter Robinson: The clause does not say that. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State is required to close the scheme only if
“he is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by the provision remaining in force.”
How will the Secretary of State ever be able to say that?

David Hanson: At that time, the Secretary of State will make a political judgment on the effectiveness of the scheme and on whether it should be continued. Committee members have said that there is no potential to close the scheme down, yet under clause 23(1), the Secretary of State can close it down, although only after the scheme has been operating for two years. The Secretary of State can do that.
Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson: Before I take interventions, I shall refer also to clause 22, under which the Secretary of State can, in the event of a complete breakdown because of potential violence or other issues, suspend the scheme. He or she might well deem that the political circumstances surrounding some future occurrence are such that the scheme should be suspended. Therefore, safeguards are in place on the length of the scheme, its potential suspension and its operation, and I hope that they satisfy hon. Members.

Lorely Burt: In view of the comments that he just made, is the Minister prepared to make a commitment that the scheme will be reviewed in the House in two years’ time?

David Hanson: No, for the simple reason that we have phrased the legislation to give the Secretary of State discretion in such matters. I cannot anticipate the situation in 2009. As I have said, because of the nature of the parliamentary process and the requirement for the approval of both Houses of Parliament for the scheme’s establishment, the scheme is not likely to commence operating until early to mid-2007. Two years after that brings us to early to mid-2009. I do not  know, and I am sure the hon. Lady does not, what the political circumstances surrounding the scheme’s operation will be in early to mid-2009. I simply say to all hon. Members that at that stage, under the legislation, the Secretary of State will have the ability to close down the scheme, should he or she so wish, based on his or her judgment of the circumstances at that time.

Alasdair McDonnell: We are trying to create closure, truth, openness and justice and we hope that we are making progress. Does the Minister not accept that it would be much better to time limit the scheme? A period of a year and a half or two years to make applications has been suggested, although I think that that is too long. It would be better to have a limit set in law by Parliament, with all the due respect that that would entail, rather than let the scheme start on a “suck it and see” basis, whereby we make it up as we go along. Some feel that our problem is that too many of our laws and regulations have been ad hoc. If the issue were finalised and tightened, would that not create an awful lot more confidence in the Bill?

David Hanson: Again, I do not want to create a deadline for applications of the sort proposed by the amendments because allowing six months or 12 months—or longer, under other amendments—for applications would effectively limit access to the scheme to those who are currently on the run and anyone who happened to be charged with or imprisoned for relevant offences during the relevant short period. The purpose of such a cut-off date is to limit access to the scheme, and that is not what the Government propose.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has surrounded the matter with conditions: the Secretary of State may repeal the provision, but he has to be satisfied about certain things and that it has finished serving a useful purpose. All those qualifications give absolutely no incentive for anyone to come forward unless they know that the police are about to collar them for a crime they have committed. The provision is almost self-fulfilling; if no one comes forward, the Secretary of State will feel that there is still a purpose to the provisions remaining.

David Hanson: I am not going to predict in this debate the circumstances that might prevail in early 2009. The legislation sets down a two-year minimum operation period. After that time, the Secretary of State will give consideration to the circumstances of the political debate and of what I hope will be the developing political peace process in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will make judgments at that stage, and I will not pre-empt those judgments. I simply point out that clause 23(1) sets out when the Secretary of State can end the scheme. In common with some hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, the Government believe that there should be an end date. However, I cannot determine when that should be at this stage, but whoever is the Secretary of State in 2009 will be able to do so.

Lady Hermon: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in his response on the amendments. When he checks Hansard, he will find that he described the Bill as “a temporary measure”, but what he has just said to us is that, in fact, it might be a bit temporary, or not temporary, but he cannot actually say. Is the Minister today ruling out any possibility of an amendment being tabled in another place to give a finite lifespan to this obnoxious piece of legislation?

David Hanson: There are amendments before the Committee that were tabled in this place that give a finite lifespan, and I am rejecting them. I am not going to anticipate what other amendments might be tabled on Report or in another place. I will have to deal with any such amendments—and the issues they address—in the same way as I am dealing with the amendments before us today.
The Government regard this as a temporary measure. Under clause 23(1), we have put in place a provision whereby after two years of operation of the scheme the Secretary of State has the power to close it down, if he or she judges that that should be done. I simply say to the hon. Member for North Down that that is how the Government envisage the scheme operating and that is why, in effect, we have set a time limit on when the Secretary of State can close the scheme down.

Meg Hillier: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will not accept the amendments today because he thinks that periods that they propose of six months and 12 months are too brief? Can he also explain the practicalities involved? Further, will he clarify whether he is sending a message out to people who might apply under the scheme that they have got two years and they had better hurry up and get on with it, because who knows what will happen after that point?

David Hanson: What I am saying—I hope my hon. Friend accepts it—is that after the scheme has operated for two years the Secretary of State has the power to end it. I am not in a position to predict what the political circumstances might be or what decisions the Secretary of State might make in early to mid-2009. I am simply saying that the Secretary of State has the power to close down the scheme, and I ask the Committee to accept that the Secretary of State will make a decision on that at an appropriate time in the future.

Gordon Banks: Does the Minister not accept some of the points made by Opposition Members about the absence of a driving incentive for people to come forward and to put themselves through the process? The Secretary of State has the right to close the scheme down after 24 months, and any applications to go through this process are likely to come at the tail end of that period. I urge the Minister to take on board the comments made by Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who also urged that an end date be set.

David Hanson: Again, what I say to all Members is that the legislation will put in place a two-year operation period, after which the Secretary of State will make a judgment. Because of the time scale of parliamentary procedure, it is likely that the first date on which the Secretary of State might make a decision on closing the scheme is early to mid-2009.
Members can make a judgment today. I am saying that the judgment of the Secretary of State, and my judgment and that of the Government, is that we want to put in place an opportunity for closing down the scheme after that date. We want it to be a temporary measure. I do not want the scheme to be able to continue indefinitely. However, I want to give the Secretary of State the discretion to make that decision after that two-year period, rather than be tied to a specific date, as the amendments propose.

Peter Robinson: I am not sure that the Minister has convinced anybody that six or 12 months would not be adequate. There is a distinction between what the amendments seek and what the Government indicate in clause 23. That clause refers to the provisions as a whole, and therefore includes the provision for the special tribunal. The amendments deal only with applications. What reason could there possibly be for someone not putting in an application within six months, even if they were hiding away in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan?

David Hanson: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 23(1). To clarify things for all hon. Members, it says:
“The Secretary of State may by order repeal any provision of this Act if, at any time no earlier than two years after its commencement”.
Two years after commencement, the Secretary of State could repeal any aspect of the legislation, including the certification commissioner, the special tribunal or both. We think that such decisions should be for the Secretary of State at that time.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister says that he cannot anticipate what the circumstances will be in three or four years. Is that not the very point that we made about the emergency provisions—the Diplock court—which are time limited? What is the distinction? What is the difference between the two? He can anticipate what the security situation will be, yet we cannot anticipate what this situation will be. I do not understand the difference.

David Hanson: The legislation will put in place a provision for the Secretary of State to review the situation two years after commencement. I am commending that to the Committee today because the Government and I think it is the appropriate way to handle the legislation.

Laurence Robertson: Why the difference?

David Hanson: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman in terms of this legislation is that the Secretary of State will have that power to change or  repeal any aspect of the scheme after the two-year period. I hope that satisfies members of the Committee and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Ben Wallace: For the sake of clarity, and for the record, will the Minister say whether the Government intend at some stage to close this legislation down? Does he accept that principle and will he make a statement to that effect?

David Hanson: I hope that I said clearly in my opening remarks that the Government share the view that the scheme must not continue indefinitely. We believe that the scheme is, by its very nature, a temporary provision. I am simply asking the Committee to accept that the Secretary of State will make that judgment on the temporary nature of the provision after two years of its operation. The difference between us is that the amendments say that there should be a definitive time scale and I, on behalf of the Government, am saying that—[Interruption.] My belief is that we should give a two-year operation period and then give the power to the Secretary of State to review at that time.

David Anderson: May I ask for clarification? When the legislation is put in place, will there not be a period in which we have to set the infrastructure up? We might have to advertise for a commissioner, and some have said that people might not even apply. The infrastructure might not even be in place in six months, were we to use that time scale.

David Hanson: The effect of the amendments would be that the only people who would certainly take advantage of the scheme would be those on the run and those charged. Six months is not enough time to ensure that charges could be brought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) mentioned. I simply say to the Committee that there is an honest difference between us on the operation of the scheme. The Government’s belief is that we should put in place under clause 23 an opportunity for the Secretary of State to review the scheme after two years of its operation. That is different from what is in the amendments. I commend our approach to the Committee.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very generous. I am partly reassured because I think I know where the Government are headed on this matter. Does he accept my logic that if they envisage a time when the scheme should close—that should be at the earliest opportunity—and the fact that clause 3(1) allows that to be done two years after it comes into operation, that implies that the Government foresee that the earliest opportunity could be two years after the Bill is passed? We want only to make that provision more robust, and I am partly reassured by my hon. Friend’s approach.

David Hanson: The purpose of the Bill is to say to the Committee and the House that, for two years following its enactment, it should be operational. After that time, the Secretary of State may—

Peter Robinson: May?

David Hanson: Yes, the Secretary of State may at any time repeal a provision of the Act if he is satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by it remaining in force. I hope that members of the Committee will give the Secretary of State the benefit—making judgments on the Bill, after its two years in operation—so that, much as they oppose the scheme, we can allow it to exercise its proper functions. The Secretary of State can then make a decision on its finality.

Sammy Wilson: On four occasions, I think, the Minister has used the phrase “depending on the political circumstances” and said that is one of the judgments that will be made. Can he explain that? Let us suppose that a number of people have not come forward at that stage and that Sinn Fein still says that there is an anomaly. Alternatively, in two years, Sinn Fein might still be insisting that it needs the Bill because a number of people have not availed themselves of it or that investigations by the police that are still ongoing may require some people to avail themselves of it. Is the Minister saying that those are the circumstances in which the provision will still be left open-ended? If that is the case, how will he ever get closure?

David Hanson: The two-year period will allow a future Secretary of State—either my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) or whoever holds the post at whatever time following the two-year commencement of the legislation—to make judgments about the future value of the scheme. I shall not prejudge those judgments on the scheme’s future value, because we are talking about early to mid-2009—nearly four years since the IRA’s July statement and nearly six years since the original intention of the legislation was announced. I am saying to the hon. Member for East Antrim, please allow the Secretary of State, under the Bill, to make those judgments at that time, rather than impede his judgment by pressing amendments today.

Lady Hermon: I am exceedingly grateful to the Minister who—in fairness to him and despite the tone of my voice—has been generous in taking interventions. Quite rightly, too, because we need this clarified. Does he anticipate that the main beneficiaries of an extension of the Bill by the Secretary of State beyond two years will be those identified by the historical cold case review team?

David Hanson: The scheme has been designed to meet the needs of a range of individuals, after having been assessed by the Government. They will include those who are currently outside the jurisdiction; it might include some individuals who are currently subject to inquiry by the historic inquiries team.
Although I am in danger of repeating myself, I must explain that the purpose of the Bill is to give a two-year framework and for the Secretary of State, after that time, to have powers to review any aspect of it under clause 23. I am arguing against the amendments because they would be too restrictive and would not allow the scheme to have an effect. They would not  allow cases to be brought before the special tribunal. They would create further anomalies down the line that would mean that individuals who could qualify for the scheme may not do so. There are honest disagreements between us, but I commend the clause to the Committee and urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendments.

Alasdair McDonnell: There is nothing impractical about a time limit. We must make an effort to encourage genuine people who want to make amends, put the past behind them and face to truth to come forward and tell the truth. If they do not, they should forfeit their chance of relief, whatever shape that takes. There must be a limit on applications, although it does not matter if it takes two, three or four years to work through them. We are talking about making, or logging, the application, not the time it takes to get an application through or to get it cleared at the other end.
There has to be a window, and I think that six months is more than long enough for someone to make up their mind and decide whether they want to come clean about the past and create closure for victims. If the Government cannot wear six months, they should let us hear what they think. The Minister rejected six and 12 months, but implied—I welcome the implication—that some consideration could be given to a time limit. However, there is no point in mentioning three or four years, because when the historic inquiries team comes to an end, so too will the incentive and motivation for dealing with, and working with, the process. If there is to be an incentive, the time frame for making applications must be much shorter than that for historical inquiries. That is why I tabled the amendment, which I wish to press to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.
‘and the applicant would have been convicted or acquitted but for the fact that he is believed by the commissioner to be outside the United Kingdom.’.—[Dr. Alasdair McDonnell.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Alasdair McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, leave out from ‘it’ to end of line 24 and insert—
‘(d)he gives in his application what the commissioner believes to be a full and truthful confession to his involvement in an offence to which this Act applies.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 188, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
‘(d)where paragraph (d) of subsection (2) applies, the conduct identified under subsection (6A).’.
Amendment No. 238, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
‘(6A)Where paragraph (d) of subsection (2) applies, the commissioner must identify, so far as possible by date and place, the conduct constituting each relevant offence.
(6B)In subsection (6A) “relevant offence” means an offence other than an offence with which the applicant has been charged or of which he has been convicted, to which the certification commissioner believes he gave a full and truthful confession as mentioned in subsection (2)(d).’.
Amendment No. 257, in clause 3, page 3, line 5, leave out ‘or’.
Amendment No. 258, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert
‘or
(d)an offence to which this Act applies constituted by conduct specified under subsection 6(d).’.
New clause 21—Registration by victim that prosecution should not be brought—
‘(1)A victim may register with the certification commissioner that he does not wish for a prosecution to be brought in respect of an offence to which this Act applies against any person who gives a full and truthful confession to his involvement in the offence.’.
(2)A victim may further register his wish that the confession be given by any such person in his presence.
(3)The certification commissioner shall make public any wishes submitted under subsections (1) and (2) in such manner as he sees fit.
(4)Where a victim has registered his wishes under subsection (1), any person who holds a certificate of eligibility and who has, in the opinion of the certification commissioner, given a full and truthful confession to that offence may not be prosecuted before the Special Tribunal; provided that—
(a)where a wish has been registered under subsection (2), the confession has been read by any such person in the victim’s presence;
(b)the commissioner is satisfied that the wishes of the victim were freely given and without coercion; and
(c)the confession is read in public by the person.’.
New clause 22—Consultation by commissioner—
‘In this Act, before the commissioner concludes that a confession is full and truthful, he must consult regarding it with—
(a)the Secretary of State;
(b)the Director of Public Prosecutions;
(c)the Chief Constable;
(d)the Police Ombudsman;
(e)the victim who has registered his wishes under this section;
(f)any other victim, where identifiable and practicable; and
(g)the public in such manner as the commissioner sees fit.’.

Alasdair McDonnell: The issue here is simply about creating truth, justice and openness. Under the Bill, someone can apply for a certificate only if they fall within three categories in clause 3(2). Broadly speaking, that means a person suspected of a crime committed before 1 November 2005 who is outside the jurisdiction—someone who might be described as a classic on-the-run—or a person charged with or convicted of an offence who is unlawfully at large.
I think, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, that if we are serious about a time limit and about truth, we have to introduce a fourth category for people who are not suspect, but wish to come forward and tell the truth about what they were involved in.
At the moment the Bill is a perpetrator’s charter, because not only do perpetrators have all the time in the world to come forward—if they ever do—they even have the excuse that as they were charged with nothing and suspected of nothing on 1 November, and were not unlawfully at large, they could not apply for a certificate so they had no choice but to sit back and wait.
Amendment No. 244 would introduce a fourth category of people who could come forward and give a full, frank and truthful confession. It is vital that that provision is added to the Bill to accompany the time limit, because then everybody would have the opportunity to come forward and tell the truth. If those people are found guilty, they will be convicted but will, under the legislation, be released under licence immediately.
Amendments Nos. 188, 238, 257 and 258 are consequential amendments. When somebody has come forward and told the truth under amendment No. 188, provision needs to be made for the certificate of eligibility to reflect the offences to which the person has confessed. The other amendments would follow up amendment No. 188 by doing that; they would also broaden the definition of a certified offence to cover persons who come forward and tell the truth.

Sammy Wilson: I am a bit confused about the stance that the hon. Gentleman is taking. His colleague, the hon. Member for Foyle, said that the tests that the SDLP were suggesting would seek to restrict the Bill as far as possible. But would the amendment not widen the Bill and catch more people in the net?

Alasdair McDonnell: Whatever the effect of the amendments—and that may be to open the option of widening the Bill slightly—we are here on our agenda, which is to procure truth, honesty and justice for all victims who have been left out of this legislation and have been marginalised and ignored by it.
There may be people out there who have had a change of heart and wish to come clean and resolve a problem of conscience, or who were involved in something and have since changed their minds. We feel strongly that however many people may come forward—whether that means 10 or 20—that would  help provide closure for the grieving families, some of whom are still grieving 20 years down the road. We feel that anything that provides closure would help, when what we are really looking for is truth and justice.

Lady Hermon: So that I can better understand what the hon. Gentleman has explained to the Committee, will he tell us whether he is trying to persuade us that the victims wanting the truth will accept an amnesty for those who admit to the most heinous of crimes? Surely victims want justice as well as the truth. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would widen the catch-all section, but the net result will be that those who come within it will get an amnesty. Is that what victims actually want?

Alasdair McDonnell: Some victims that I have talked to want to know what happened, and the truth about the circumstances in which their loved ones died. Some may not, but I am suggesting that if people who have committed crimes are prepared to come forward—and if this legislation is going to facilitate things for the categories listed in it—there should also be an option for others, who may not be under suspicion at this time, to come forward.
The SDLP’s new clause 21 is important in that context. At present, an informal truth system is operated between the historical inquiries team of the PSNI and the victims, especially the victims of the state. The Pat Finucane Centre has told us particularly how it works. Essentially, many victims of the state are less interested in securing convictions, and more interested in securing the truth. They believe that they will get more truth if they do not actively pursue convictions; that is happening at present in many cases. We feel we need to maintain that system, which reflects what we perceive to be current practice and the wishes of many victims—not all, I accept.
Some might object that whether a prosecution should or should not be brought is a matter for the public, too. We believe that the victim’s interests should be the overriding priority, especially as that is already happening on a pragmatic basis. It would also be rich of the Government to stand on that point when, at the same time, they propose walking all over victims in the Bill. The victim could also require that the confession be given in his presence; in any event, it would have to be given publicly. These factors are essential to building some hope of future reconciliation. Of course there must be a full and truthful confession to the offence. One cannot require truth regarding all offences, because it will be for other victims to consider a waiver with regard to crimes committed against them.
We have also introduced new clause 22 as an important safeguard. The commissioner, before concluding that a confession is full and truthful, must consult the victim, the public, the Secretary of State, the PSNI—including the Chief Constable—and the police ombudsman as well.

Lorely Burt: I seek clarification on another point. If victims are to have a say in this whole process, and a number of victims are involved—as in a bombing, for  example—how would it be resolved if there were a difference of opinion over whether someone should be prosecuted or not?

Alasdair McDonnell: I think that there would be considerable difficulties if there were multiple victims. I am looking particularly at where single victims were involved, or this becomes extremely complicated. However, we feel very strongly that much truth and honesty should emerge. There may be those who perpetrated past crimes who would wish to get them off their chest, and would want access to some mechanism for that. We feel this would provide a useful release and a conclusion for some if not all victims.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking another intervention, but I am deeply concerned about the amendment that he has moved on behalf of his party. There are many reasons for my concern, but could the hon. Gentleman just address his mind to this thought? The IRA has not been reluctant in the past to intimidate witnesses. How does he expect to protect people from having to confess to crimes in order to shelter someone else in the provisional movement? Also, we alluded this morning to those who seek fame and publicity in the newspapers. How would the hon. Gentleman protect those two categories of person?

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but we could protect those people only so far as they are protected at present. There are “Jekyll and Hyde” individuals who admit to crimes that they did not commit. In spite of all the intimidation, people do come forward and want to clear the decks about some things that have happened. People are not always prepared to give in.
The measures may not involve dozens of people; I am not certain that there will be a queue outside the commissioner’s office, but if the legislation is to be taken seriously, a clause must be built in to include the category that I suggest, as well as the categories currently proposed. I hope that the Government will consider this bundle of amendments, which would allow victims who want truth and justice to get them. The amendments would not allow the perpetrators to continue to sit back and hold all the aces.

David Hanson: Earlier in our proceedings, I alluded to the difficulties involved in requiring individuals to provide a statement. I appreciate that this group of amendments seeks to do something completely different: it seeks to encourage confession, with the possibility—this is the important point—of freedom from prosecution altogether.
Although there are honest disagreements in this Committee about the nature of the scheme, I have taken the view—for reasons that I have already given—that the scheme as constituted gives the individuals who qualify for it the opportunity to face the special tribunal and prosecution, to be convicted of a crime if found guilty, and then to be released on licence under the scheme.
The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South suggest the possibility of complete freedom from prosecution, so that the individual would not be convicted of a crime, would not be released on licence, and would not have to face the special prosecutor involved in the scheme. That would significantly widen the scope of the scheme that the Government propose—which I know many Committee members oppose already—in a way that would be unhelpful and undermine the scheme’s basis.
There is a second issue to do with the amendments: new clause 21 would, essentially, establish a truth and reconciliation scheme in Northern Ireland. The Government have themselves examined the possibility of such a scheme. In the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, visited South Africa to examine the purposes of such a scheme. The Government have said that there may—I strongly emphasise the “may”—be merit in such a scheme at some point in the future, and we are not ruling it out. However, our considered view at the moment is that such a scheme would not be helpful, and that the people of Northern Ireland are not yet ready for one.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister is coming to a point on which I hope he will elaborate. I had the opportunity of visiting South Africa and learning about the truth and reconciliation process there. That leads us back to the previous clause, and I shall not test your patience, Mr. Taylor, by saying that the time limit was crucial to the success of the scheme in South Africa. The Committee would be interested to learn a little more about why a truth and reconciliation process, which would allow us to see some form of justice and a better form of closure—that key word, used so much in this Committee—for the victim as well as the culprit, could not have been brought about, instead of the Bill before us today.

David Hanson: As I said, the Government have actively considered the potential for a truth and reconciliation scheme such as that which operated in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen visited South Africa to establish whether such a scheme was possible.
Mr. Ellwoodrose—

David Hanson: Let me finish the point. The Government have not ruled out such a scheme, but we have concluded that the time is not right for one. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is cross-party, not Government controlled, and has been chaired by Opposition Members. That Committee concluded that at this point in Northern Ireland’s history, the time is not yet right for a truth and reconciliation commission.
The Government have reflected on those comments and considered internally whether such a commission is possible. We have come to the judgment that the proposals outlined in new clause 21, tabled by my hon.  Friend the Member for Belfast, South, would not be practical or welcome at this time. I do not rule some such thing out for the future, but at this juncture in Northern Ireland’s history, with the support of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the proposals in new clause 21 have been ruled out.
I say to my hon. Friend that his other amendments would significantly widen the scheme and ensure that what the Government have been accused of in the past in respect of individuals qualifying for an amnesty—accusations that I do not accept—would, in the event of such individuals coming before the commission, really come about.
There are honest disagreements in the Committee, but I believe that individuals have to be made accountable for and, if appropriate, be convicted for their actions. They should face the potential for a sentence for their actions and be released on licence, so that there is some control of their behaviour in future. I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendments and new clauses, which would effectively allow an amnesty, and I urge him not to press them. If he cannot agree with me about that, for the umpteenth time I urge my hon. Friends to reject them.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister, but I feel that an important principle, which has to be on the record, is involved. Perhaps my new clause comes close to a truth and justice commission, but there is a need for closure, and for an opportunity for an awful lot of people who have committed crimes. A lot of victims need to know who perpetrated crimes and be able to face them.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The problem for Opposition Members is that that commission would be, in effect, a truth without justice commission. That is our difficulty.

Alasdair McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman may see it that way, and I understand that. However, where I am coming from, such a commission would be a positive contribution to the Bill. There would be ways and means of further adjusting some of the amendments if that were necessary, and I should be glad to see that done.
In view of the concerns expressed, I am not prepared to push the issue to a Division. However, I should like it put on record that, as the Bill progresses and is considered by another place, the issue should be considered, or at least be on the table in some shape or form. If the Bill is to be enacted, it is important that it should be as comprehensive as possible in dealing with all the issues that may arise. I have deep reservations about the Bill and its foundation. Nevertheless, if it is to be enacted, and if the Government are intent on making it happen, the issue that I have raised has to be built into it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 233, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘that’, insert
‘in the opinion of a senior police officer’.—[Dr. Alasdair McDonnell.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘does not support’ and insert
‘has not at any time supported an organisation which is currently’.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 18.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘a specified organisation’ and insert
‘an organisation which is prescribed under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 125, in clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 6 and insert
‘proscribed organisation under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.’.
Amendment No. 136, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out ‘specified organisation’ and insert
‘proscribed organisation under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.’.
Amendment No. 196, in clause 19, page 10, leave out lines 16 and 17.
Amendment No. 197, in clause 19, page 10, line 16, leave out from ‘organisation”’ to end of line 17 and insert
‘means an organisation specified by order of the Secretary of State under section [Duty of Secretary of State to specify certain organisations].’.
New clause 19—Duty of Secretary of State to specify certain organisations—
‘The Secretary of State shall specify, for the purposes of this Act, any organisation which he believes—
(a)has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire;
(b)has not completed decommissioning to the satisfaction of the Commission referred to in section 7(1) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997; or
(c)has not ended its involvement in—
(i)attacks on the security forces, murders, sectarian attacks, riots, or other criminal offences (including organised crime);
(ii)training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons or other preparations for terrorist campaigns; or
(iii)punishment beatings or attacks or exiling,
to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Commission referred to in section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003.’.

Laurence Robertson: Under the Bill, applicants are disqualified from being awarded a certificate if they support a specified organisation. To make the Bill consistent with other legislation, we propose to amend it so that people involved with proscribed organisations are disqualified. If people are to be set free and effectively given a pardon for their crimes, the least we can ask for is that they are no longer involved with criminality—at all.

David Hanson: Just so that I can follow the debate as we go along, if the provision were extended to a proscribed organisation, so that eligibility were denied to proscribed organisations and specified ones, who would qualify?

Laurence Robertson: The point is that—[Interruption.]

David Taylor: Order.

Laurence Robertson: I beg the Minister’s pardon. I understood that the IRA was no longer active and that it was giving up completely. That is what we have been told and that is the basis of the progress we are supposed to be making.

David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Laurence Robertson: In a moment. Is the Minister happy for somebody to return to this country to be given a certificate—a get-out-of-jail-free card—and for them to rejoin the IRA?

David Hanson: The point I am making is that if individuals are not eligible if they are in a proscribed organisation, which the IRA currently is, and if they are not eligible if they are in specified organisations, of which there is a long list, the only individuals left will be those in the security forces who qualify for the scheme.

Laurence Robertson: That is not the case. The Bill says that
“the applicant does not support a specified organisation”.
Presumably, when the individual makes his application, he can put in a letter of resignation to the IRA, although I do not know how these things work. [Interruption.] That seems to me to be  straightforward. I cannot see how this amendment can be resisted. Surely the Minister cannot be saying that he is happy for someone who is an active IRA member to get one of these get-out-of-jail-free cards. I cannot understand how anybody can propose that that should be the case. The people who benefit from this scheme should not belong to a proscribed organisation.
The IRA is illegal under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 12 states:
“A person commits an offence if—
(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation”.
In respect of uniforms and proscribed organisations, section 13 states:
“A person in a public place commits an offence if he—
(a)wears an item of clothing”,
for example. The point I am making is that that is illegal activity.
If we are going to give these benefits to such people who return to this country—if they are not already in the country—the victims are surely entitled to expect them to have given up all commitment to, and certainly any criminality linked with, such paramilitary organisations. After all, those are the very organisations that caused the problems in the first place. Are we really saying that such people can do everything they have, and then come back to receive a complete amnesty—I am sorry if the Minister finds that term objectionable—and carry on in the very organisation that has killed so many people? That is outrageous.
It might be the case that in recent years people have not been arrested for belonging to the IRA, but they certainly should have been. They are breaking the law. In my view, just prohibiting people from belonging to specified organisations if they are to be awarded a certificate is not enough. The victims have a right to know that if these people are to be allowed to return to the streets of Northern Ireland, they will not engage in any form of paramilitary activity. The IRA is an illegal paramilitary organisation, and no one who is to benefit from the considerable concessions in this Bill should be allowed to cause further hurt to those they have previously terrorised by being allowed to rejoin the IRA—or any other illegal organisation, including those on the so-called loyalist side.
Is it really okay for people given a licence under this legislation to rejoin the IRA or any similar illegal organisation? As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, that would boost the membership of those organisations yet again. We do not know how many such people are on the run. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked the question: how many people are we talking about? We do not know. If we do not know how many we are talking about, and if it is quite all right to rejoin the IRA, we do not know to what extent that organisation will be strengthened.
The IRA has not disbanded. It has not given up its criminal activity. It is still involved in that—as far as I know, the Government are still blaming the IRA for the recent major bank robbery. How can we give these  benefits to such people, only to watch them rejoin the organisations that caused the problems and the terror in the first place?

Ben Wallace: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. It is important that people who make an application should be asked to renounce membership of any such proscribed organisation. We should not forget that the constitutions of some proscribed organisations have not been amended since the ceasefire. The IRA’s Green Book—which is, effectively, its constitution—states:
“Commitment to the Republican Movement is the firm belief that its struggle both military and political is morally justified”.
It states later:
“The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces”—
that is us—
“and domestic collaborators”—
members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other constabularies. Those statements are still in the IRA’s constitution.
Let us consider some of the more unpleasant organisations. The Irish National Liberation Army said,
“we will kill your soldiers for as long as you keep them in our country.”
In its current statement on the ceasefire, it says:
“We are on ceasefire for now.”
What is wrong with requiring individuals—lucky individuals, who are effectively being given amnesty—to renounce their membership of organisations that under their constitution are still dedicated to armed struggle? Yes, they might be on ceasefire, but we owe that decency to the victims. People cannot come forward, yet afterwards continue to be an officer, as they call themselves, of the IRA, or a member of the loyalist paramilitaries and so on. It is morally wrong.

Tobias Ellwood: This concerns the mindset of the terrorist and perhaps distinguishes us from what is happening under the South African system. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we do not consider the mindset of individuals who come forward to be considered to make sure that they have relinquished all ties with any form of terrorism, we are allowing the IRA to regroup during peacetime until something else comes along or until those people disagree with the way the peace process is developing?

Ben Wallace: Yes, I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that we send out a clear message. The Government have resisted the time scale and the voice of victims in the process. It is extraordinary that they are allowing people to remain part of terrorist organisations after the fact. How they can square that with truth and reconciliation, heaven only knows.

Tom Harris: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware that the Good Friday agreement does not specify or demand the disbandment of the IRA?

Ben Wallace: Although I would like to call for the disbandment of the IRA, I am not doing so; I am saying that this is about the applicants seeking amnesty. The onus should be on them to renounce their membership of such organisations. They can renounce their membership of the IRA and join Sinn Fein, if that is what they want to do. Many of them have; many of them have dual membership. Why are we not putting any onus on the applicant? We are putting no time scale in the Bill; people do not even have to appear in person; and this provision goes even further in that direction.
I urge those on both sides of the Committee to support the amendment, which simply says, “You cannot have your cake and eat it.” Given what the Government are doing, what message are we giving to the people of Northern Ireland and the victims? In 1979, a Member of this House was murdered by the INLA, within walking distance of this Room. Two of those murderers are living abroad, one in Switzerland and one in France. If those people ask for amnesty for the murder of one of our colleagues, what is wrong with asking them to renounce their membership of an evil organisation?

Peter Robinson: I shall be brief because I am sure that we want to finish our debates on the clause by lunchtime. What weight does the Minister apply to the phrase “does not support”? It seems to be saying that the commissioner will not have to satisfy himself that the person is a member of a specified organisation or, under the amendment, a proscribed organisation or that in some way the person still renders such an organisation support. What distinction does the Minister draw from that?
The real problem with the provision is how difficult it would be for the commissioner to satisfy himself or herself that the applicant did support an organisation. He might be able to determine whether the person had in the past supported an organisation that was either specified or proscribed, but it would be difficult to show whether the person currently supported the organisation. Amendment No. 6 would have linked the provision to past support for an organisation that is currently specified, which would have made a lot more sense. Even if the clause were amended, although the amendment would strengthen it, it is unlikely that the commissioner would be able to use the provision that it contained.

Alasdair McDonnell: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 196 and 197 and new clause 19. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but want briefly to point out that some of us find the Bill not only invidious, but insulting to a degree.
The 2003 joint declaration on the agreement demanded decommissioning by all paramilitary groups and an end to certain activities, such as punishment beatings, targeting and intelligence gathering. The Government chose at that time not to  demand an end to paramilitary crime. We argued with them that they should, and that their failure to do so could be seen subsequently as a licence to rob. They did not listen.
The multi-million pound Jonesboro cigarette heist happened in December 2003, the million-pound Makro heist occurred in May 2004 and the multi-million pound Gallaher cigarette heist took place in October 2004. Throughout those events, the Government said little or nothing. The Prime Minister even said that the only issue was photographic evidence of decommissioning, despite our repeated warnings that the Government’s silence was allowing IRA criminality to get totally out of control. When the Northern bank raid happened last December—the largest bank raid in the history of these islands—the Government woke up, and they, too, demanded an end to organised crime. Only then did they make it clear that they would introduce this legislation.
Once the Governments—I say that because both the Irish and British Governments were involved—stopped making excuses for the IRA and started putting real pressure on it, it decommissioned and committed to ending all activity; and the Government introduced this legislation.
We need to look at the loyalists and ask ourselves where they are at. They have not decommissioned a single bullet or ended any of their activities. We had a very difficult summer due to various loyalist activities. The Independent Monitoring Commission confirms that they are up to their necks in drug dealing, intimidation, punishment beatings and racketeering. Yet under the 2003 Hillsborough side deal between the Government and Sinn Fein, which the Bill will implement, loyalists benefit tremendously. They are entitled to go free without so much as decommissioning a single bullet or committing to end any of their criminal activities.
For a paramilitary organisation to benefit from clause 3(3), all that is required is that it is not a specified organisation. As clause 19 and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 make clear, that only means that the Secretary of State has to recognise their ceasefires. It seems that the crimes that they are up to, or not up to, do not matter. The Ulster Defence Association hands out punishment beatings, exiles, robs, runs rackets, deals drugs and intimidates, and its people will still benefit under the legislation.
Even the definition of a ceasefire is flexible. Just this year, as I mentioned earlier, the Ulster Volunteer Force murdered four people, without the Secretary of State specifying the organisation. It was only when it began to shoot at the police—in fact, it fired 114 shots that we are aware of and perhaps a few more that we are not aware of—that the Government started to act.
The IRA had to decommission and commit to ending all activity to benefit. Why do the Government think that loyalists should not have to do likewise? Or were they simply overlooked when the Bill was drafted? After all, by my count, they were responsible for the deaths of some 800 people, mostly in vicious sectarian killings. It is difficult to convey in words the anger that that double standard for loyalism creates. It  is equally difficult to convey in words the astonishment that Sinn Fein signed on for that in its shoddy Hillsborough side deal. That is one of the most invidious and discriminatory aspects of the Bill.
I want to press amendments Nos. 196 and 197 and new clause 19, which is based on the wording of the treaty establishing the IMC. In addition, we have added a clear reference to organised crime in the new clause. If the Government are serious about what they put in the treaty establishing the IMC, and if they are serious about organised crime, they will accept amendments Nos. 196 and 197.

Lorely Burt: I want to add our party’s support for the amendments. Indeed, they are similar to our amendment No. 48, in that they would include a reference to proscribed organisations, rather than specified ones.
The amendments throw the net wider than organisations that are not on ceasefire, so as to include all terrorist organisations. We all need much more reassurance that a person availing themselves of the scheme cannot support any kind of terrorist organisation. The criteria under which an organisation can be specified are not good enough; we have been telling the Government that for some time. The Government should take into account whether an organisation is complying fully with the terms of paragraph 13.

David Hanson: I shall try to complete this response before 1 o’clock, so I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I do not take interventions.
Proscribed organisations and specified organisations are defined in legislation. A proscribed organisation is an illegal organisation concerned with terrorism. Specified organisations are organisations specified by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. For an organisation to be specified by the Secretary of State, he must believe that it
“is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it, and”,
crucially,
“has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.”
The organisations currently specified by the Secretary of State are: the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the UVF, the Red Hand Commando—that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South about loyalist organisations that would not qualify for the scheme if they remained not on ceasefire— the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and the Orange Volunteers. All those bodies will not, while specified, qualify for the scheme under clause 3(3)(a), which mentions “a specified organisation”.
The question is whether we include proscribed organisations under the scheme. The Government have taken the view that specified organisations, and the eligibility in subsection (3), are important, and are specific and sufficient enough to ensure that the scheme, and entry into it, is defined very tightly. Government policy is that the conditions of entry into the scheme are based on, and closely follow, those for  entry into the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. That legislation ensures no entry into the scheme for individuals who support an organisation that is specified or becomes specified. Also, the individual has to achieve the criteria set out in section 3 of that Act. I believe that that is sufficient, and it mirrors the situation as regards the scheme in the Bill.
If membership of the IRA could be proved, an individual could be prosecuted, and if the prosecution were successful—I recognise that not many have occurred—the individual would lose his or her eligibility for the scheme. That is because they had been prosecuted for that offence under clause 3(3)(c)—which refers to committing an offence after 10 April—as membership of the IRA remains a scheduled offence. So, it would be possible to undertake such a prosecution.
With that, I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw the amendment, and I ask hon. Members to reject it, because I am anxious about time and about completing our consideration of this clause.

Laurence Robertson: I cannot withdraw the amendment; the Minister has not satisfied us, so I wish to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o’clock.